Diver Detained For Cleaning Up Trash from a River

[Music] welcome to audit the audit where we sort out the who and what in the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers national parks historical objects and the chattahoochee river and comes to us from depths of history's channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve before we dive into the interaction i want to give a big thanks to the sponsor of this episode surf shark surf shark is a premier vpn service that offers unparalleled digital security for a fraction of the price of other competitors surf shark offers its users one of the most secure vpn tunnels on the market with absolutely no data locks so not even surf shark employees can see what you're doing online a surf shark subscription is totally unlimited which means that you can use it on as many devices as you like and even on all of them at once no other vpn service offers that much accessibility one of the many perks of a surf shark subscription is that it allows you to bypass region restrictions on popular platforms like youtube and netflix and view content that is not normally available in your country right now surf shark is offering the ata community an 83 discount with an additional three months completely free with 24-hour customer service and a 30-day money-back guarantee you have absolutely nothing to lose so click the link in the description to claim your exclusive offer now thanks again to surfshark for sponsoring this episode in a video posted on march 6 2021 scuba diver and youtuber britain lockhart found a gun while scuba diving in the chattahoochee river national recreation area which is located in northern georgia and removed it from the river after mr lockhart called the police to retrieve the gun an unidentified united states park ranger approached mr lockhart to confront him about his diving activities yes ma'am that was uh that's a picture over there from what i've been told but remember i talked to you before about this but the water is part of chattahoochee river national recreation area it's federal property that's managed by the department of interior national park service but you're telling me by like finding a gun like you don't want people going in here and finding firearms and giving them back and like collecting trash i'm not taking anything else out of here besides like trash i'm literally just cleaning your driver's license on you i do enjoy i haven't removed anything from the part you put everything back put everything back yeah we'll take a picture is everything on her correction yes the ranger claims to have seen mr lockhart's videos and that in these videos she has seen him remove things from the park however mr lockhart states that he has not removed anything from the park while a video that mr lockhart posted on his youtube channel on february 28 2021 shows mr lockhart removing several guns from the river and reporting them to the police it does not show him taking the guns out of the park the ranger also requests mr lockhart's id which he provides to her without protest as federal law enforcement officers united states park rangers are generally authorized to enforce federal laws as well as the laws of the state where the park is located and section 102701 of title 54 of the united states code permits rangers to quote conduct investigations of offenses against the united states committed in the system in the absence of investigation of the offenses by any other federal law enforcement agency having investigative jurisdiction over the offense committed or with the concurrence of the other agency while the federal statutory law does not explicitly empower rangers to request identification from the subjects of investigations it is well within their scope of authority to ask individuals to provide identification on a voluntary basis just like officers can generally request that a citizen consent to a search or answer questions during a consensual encounter however since neither georgia nor federal law criminalizes an individual's refusal to identify themselves to law enforcement mr lockhart could not have been arrested if he had refused to identify himself to the ranger or provide identification and a court likely would conclude that he was within his rights to do so as far as i'm concerned it's a public waterway anybody's allowed to go yeah you can go in there and referee did you have a dive flag we did it yeah yeah we do we have it right by the car it was inside of your vehicle inside the yeah yeah because i've seen some videos where you didn't have a dive fly yes ma'am and we recently found available you find things that are a historical value that's a problem you understand from in which in which area because i haven't found anything historical over here it may have been like holcomb bridge park or something but which again it's part of chattahoochee river falcon bridge park is not part of the chattahoochee river national recreation area but the waterway is nope that doesn't make any sense because the waterway is public here's here's the thing so if we're doing what we're patrolling and we're on the river and we see somebody with who's floating the river and they don't have a life jacket we are legally allowed to stop them and cite them for not having a life jacket okay it's a part of chattahoochee river national recreation right the land is not the river is but you're but you're saying by going in the river and removing trash out of the river that that is illegal what i'm saying is that there inherently there's a risk of you finding something of historical value okay okay moving that from the river is illegal but we didn't remove anything of historical value how are we supposed to know this well scuba diving is not illegal i didn't say it was it's i didn't say what but i just don't i just don't understand what's going on because i the ranger argues that when mr lockhart and his diving companions remove objects from the river there is always the risk of an item of historical significance being destroyed or damaged by its improper removal even if the object originally appears to be trash there are many legal restrictions in place that limit the types of objects that can be gathered or removed from a national park for example section 2.1 of title 36 of the code of federal regulations prohibits quote possessing destroying injuring defacing removing digging or disturbing from its natural state living or dead wildlife or fish or the parts or products thereof such as antlers or nests plants or the parts or products thereof non-fossilized and fossilized paleontological specimens cultural or archaeological resources or the parts thereof or a mineral resource or cave formation or the parts thereof the same section of the code forbids park visitors from quote possessing destroying injuring defacing removing digging or disturbing a structure or its furnishing or fixtures or other cultural or archaeological resources while the officers in charge of a park area are permitted to designate natural products such as fruits berries nuts or unoccupied seashells that may be gathered by hand for personal use they also have the authority to limit the size and quantity of the natural products that may be gathered or the location where natural products may be collected even when park officials allow certain natural products to be gathered they can prohibit their removal from the park area and section 2.1 prohibits quote gathering or possessing undesignated natural products gathering or possessing natural products in violation of the size or quantity limits unauthorized removal of natural products from the park area gathering natural products outside of designated areas and the sale or commercial use of natural products while it does not appear that the gun mr lockhart removed on the day of the interaction would fall into any of the prohibited categories the park ranger's concerns make sense given the broad range of objects that cannot be removed from or disturbed in the park under federal law so what like in the what would you advise me i would advise you in the future to contact the park saying hey this is what i would like to do and then we can assess see if there's any historical value if anything going on and they may require somebody to monitor so when you bring something out we can take a look at that is something that you might want to consider doing so we don't keep running into the same thing over and over again no i completely understand um is like as for you know i mean i because when i've been doing this i've found over 70 guns handling the little police i've been very nice with several different people like taking trash out of the river i just like i i don't want to have any problems like that's like that's like the number one thing with me i don't want to have any problems i don't understand that so it's just like i i don't understand like it just makes me emotional because i'm like if even even if historical artifacts are in the river why aren't you guys taking them out because we leave them where they are why would you leave them where they are that's rotting away history well you know that's history riding away that's part of the policy that's history rotting away though like you guys should get that up and turn it into museums and you know what you can do is notify our superintendent and let her know that you have a problem with that i just don't understand i just want to get trash out i'm trying to do the right thing i i understand like i said places like vulcan bridge that's not our property so that's not park property so that's okay physically the land is not ours but the water is we still patrolled the water okay but i've directly yeah i thought the waterways were public that's what i was better it's part of the federal it's part of the federal land it's part of jupiter national recreation do you have writing that says that yeah you can even go on our website okay i'll have to look at that because i don't think that's right but mr lockhart and the park ranger respectfully debate the jurisdictional authority of the national park service on the chattahoochee river and the ranger asserts that the service maintains authority over the waters even when surrounding parkland is not under federal jurisdiction section 460iii of title 16 of the united states code designates the area included in the chattahoochee river national recreation area as quote a 48-mile segment of the chattahoochee river and certain adjoining lands in the state of georgia from beaufort dam downstream to peachtree creek and section 460i-2 grants the secretary of the interior the authority to administer protect and develop the recreation area section 100 501 of title 54 of the united states code includes any area of land and water administered by the secretary of the interior as part of the national park system which subjects the park areas to federal regulations under the relevant legal provisions all 48 miles of the river waters are included in the chattahoochee river national recreation area but only some of the adjoining lands are under federal jurisdiction one of the areas that mr lockhart and the ranger discuss is holcomb bridge park which is a local park in gwinnett county georgia that is located on the chattahoochee even though the parkland itself is not under federal jurisdiction because the portion of the chattahoochee river in the park area falls within the 48-mile stretch of federal land included in the chattahoochee river national recreation area federal regulations still apply to the waters while the ranger is correct and arguing that the national park service has jurisdiction over the waters within the national recreation area it's important to note that these federal rivers are open to the public which seems to be a point of confusion for mr lockhart even though the federal portions of the chattahoochee river are open for public use they are still subject to federal regulations i don't know what i'm talking about i just i just don't think no i just don't think that it's right because it's a public right is within the national park service jurisdictional boundaries the park is different from the river you know what i'm not going to continue arguing this either okay but we're still out to pick up trash trash is you know that's something i mean obvious obvious trash trash yes okay you know you find a gun cool great you turn it in but the thing is that you never know what you're going to find if you find something of historical value that becomes a problem when you remove it from the river you're removing it the context like we can't get that back when would you guys ever do that though because there's just rotting there i'm not i am not one of the resource people okay so we can find it document it tell you guys we'll be done with it yeah and put it back tell us but then that'll be there for another 20 years and it'll be roughly again maybe maybe it just doesn't seem like another thing to consider you told me you found the bump right that was the mortar that we found before so it's something that can be dangerous to you and others around you right that that's something most definitely probably 100 100 so we have an example there of things that you can find that you don't want to stuff it yourself to consider yeah i'll be looking for the national park i'll be looking for the national park boundaries and anywhere that's not in that national park boundary i'm going to be glad okay and that's beef that's below peachtree corners perfect all right all right sounds good thank you okay thank you after clarifying the boundaries of the federal portion of the chattahoochee river mr lockhart tells the ranger that he will review the applicable laws and the two cordially thanked each other as mr lockhart left the scene without further incident overall the national park service ranger gets a b-plus because although her overall tone and approach could certainly be improved she remained within the bounds of her authority throughout the interaction and provided mr lockhart with accurate information regarding the federal regulation of the chattahoochee river many of the points that the ranger made were valid concerns that were supported by federal law and she was correct in pointing out that scuba diving in waterways that have the potential to hold irreplaceable historical artifacts has the potential to damage or destroy these irreplaceable pieces of history the chattahoochee river once served as a diving boundary between the creek and cherokee native american tribes but throughout the 1820s the tribes were removed by incoming american settlers so the chattahoochee likely holds many relics from those tribes that would require expert removal upon discovery as mentioned before removing almost any item from the park boundaries is against federal law regardless of whether or not it holds historical significance but the damage caused by unintentionally destroying precious artifacts extends far beyond jurisdiction of the law while i do appreciate and empathize with the rangers concerns the manner in which she expressed those concerns to mr lockhart was both unprofessional and poorly articulated if the ranger had simply explained to mr lockhart that federally owned land is open to the public then you may have understood her points more clearly and much of the miscommunication regarding this interaction could have been resolved by making this distinction instead of engaging in a verbal debate with mr lockhart the ranger could have taken a less authoritative approach and encouraged mr lockhart to enjoy the park's facilities in a safe and respectable manner mr lockhart also gets a b-plus because although it is clear that he was mistaken about the jurisdiction of the park ranger and he willfully surrendered his id despite not having committed a crime he challenged the legitimacy of the rangers assertions and remained calm and collected throughout the encounter as mentioned before many aspects of this interaction boiled down to a miscommunication regarding public access to federal property and it is difficult to fault mr lockhart for not understanding this fact given the ranger's poor explanation although mr lockhart's knowledge regarding the federal code was somewhat lacking the rangers failure to provide clarity on the topic only served to exacerbate the hostility of the interaction mr lockhart originally called the police in hopes of doing the right thing but he found himself in a situation where he was forced to defend his actions to the police instead this likely instilled a sense of betrayal and distrust for the officers and evidently discourage mr lockhart from enjoying the river this stop is a testament to how an officer's demeanor can dictate the tone and resolution of any interaction with members of the public and while the national parks ranger did make valid points and suggestions her boorish and unprofessional approach overshadowed her lawful intentions let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic you would like us to discuss in the comments below also be sure to check out my second channel where i will be covering encounters and stories that didn't make the cut for this channel and offering even more police interaction content you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 574,984

Rating: 4.8679657 out of 5

Keywords: amagansett press, first amendment audit, 1st amendment audit, auditing america, news now california, sgv news first, high desert community watch, anselmo morales, photography is not a crime, san joaquin valley transparency, first amendment audit fail, walk of shame, news now houston, police fail, 1st amendment audit fail, public photography, auditor arrested, police brutality, highdesert community watch, pinac news, cops triggered, news now patrick, east hampton

Id: QZkPbWhB0_c

Length: 16min 17sec (977 seconds)

Published: Thu Mar 25 2021